When someone creates something, it is their work and their property--free to do whatever they desire with it. This includes, for instance, making that work publicly available for anyone interested to see at no charge. But how simple is it in the inverse? How easy is it for someone make their previously public work disappear entirely?

In the case of Marcianüs vs Davinescu, et. al., Viteu Marcianüs (referred to by some simply as "V"), a former citizen, wrote a biographical article about himself on the TalossaWiki website in 201 2. The article included details about his personal life and interests, as well as a self-uploaded picture to round it out. Now, as a former citizen, Marcianüs wishes to have the article scrubbed almost entirely, leaving only infoboxes with references to his previously held offices kept for preservation of the historical record.
Before the case was filed and while he still had access, Marcianüs wiped his article completely on the 6th of January, replacing it with a brief paragraph outlining his decision to renounce and leave the Kingdom.

Alexandreu Davinescu, the Minister of Stuff at that time and a current TalossaWiki administrator, saw the edit and took action, reversing it back to its original form, then adding the paragraph back to the page under the subheading "Departure". Marcianüs, upon realizing this reversal, emailed Davinescu on January 8th, asking him to remove the contents of seven (out of nine) subheadings, keeping only his paragraph "Departure" and the infoboxes. Davinescu then removed references to Marcianüs' personal life from the article, keeping only what he deemed relevant to the historical record, which included autobiographical information and Marcianüs' uploaded picture. He also cited TalossaWiki's privacy policy, which specifically points out that all contributions to the Wiki are public.

This, unfortunately, wasn't enough relief for Marcianüs. He retained Tim Asmourescu as counsel to file suit against Davinescu and the Ministry of Stuff.
As the lawsuit points out, there was no law that specifically created the Wiki, rather, it is an undertaking by the Ministry of Stuff; its announcement "issued under government seal". Therefore, the lawsuit argues, the privacy policy that was created for the Wiki cannot supersede the Fourth Covenant of Rights and Freedoms in OrgLaw, which in this case would mean that Marcianüs is entitled to the removal of his information from this government site.

Asmourescu then "took to the streets" on behalf of his client, seeking judgement for the plaintiff in the Cort of Public Opinion with a statement that Marcianüs wished to be posted on Witt. Marcianüs writes, "I ask my former fellow Talossans – is there any real justification for having a wiki entry dedicated solely to me with the use of my picture? ...would you not see this as a blatant violation of your privacy?"

His question, along with the rest of his statement, prompted discussion among citizens and political figures; "The privacy of individuals should be something we take very seriously," wrote Carlüs Xheraltescù, "especially for Talossans who might be involved in macronational affairs which might demand exceptional amounts of privacy regarding their relationship with Talossa... I too am sympathetic to Viteu's request."

Davinescu also responded, noting his efforts to remove the "personal" information and pointing out that the information which remained in the article was important to the historical record, reiterating that Marcianüs wrote and published the article himself. Davinescu also made clear that he holds no personal grudge against his former fellow Talossan. Back in the Magistrate's Cort, the case still sits dormant, waiting for a judge to begin the proceedings. For now, the article has been locked from being edited except by administrators, and V's picture still remains. one uncomfortable fact remains: on every article, including the one for Viteu Marcianüs, there is a little blue tab that reads "View History" allowing anyone, Talossan or not, to read every previous version of the article. As the policy warns, there should be no expectations of privacy. Regardless of what comes of the proceedings,